Public relations outside the elite agencies

“Public relations is all about coordinated actions over a sustained period of time. When it isn’t about that, you’re going to see a brief flame erupt and then die out, and you’re to see a great deal of time, energy, and money squandered on what could have been, but never will be.” (Notes for Discussions with Jack True, Jon Rappoport)

In the past, I have had some critical things to say about PR efforts by non-mainstream groups.

Their work tends to be monochromatic. One-trick.

With knowledge, these groups could spend their money and time and energy more wisely.

When I consider taking on a client for PR work, I want to know if he can see his mission in terms of multiple vectors. This vision is essential, because coordinating various angles of approach is more effective than simply ringing the same bell over and over.

Two attitudes usually infect good and righteous causes, when they are forwarded from outside the establishment:

One: “We are the underdogs.”

Two: “We must convert mainstream people by matching what we say to what they can accept.”

Neither of these attitudes wins the day.

The first comes close to an admission of defeat; the second fails to realize that “what people can accept” is so superficial, trying to match it with PR will cause no more than a mild ripple in a pond.

Whether the PR campaign mainly concentrates on a flood of positive communication or an attack, the attitude needs to be very strong. It needs to project great energy.

In ads, a young bland woman walking toward the camera with a toothy smile, and a message that comes across like an operator standing by on the other end of an 800 number, isn’t going to do the trick.

There is currently a PR campaign underway (whose name I won’t mention), in which the desired audience is American mothers. The attitude is: “We have to be both polite and firm. We have to present them with objective facts, in order to change their minds.”

Perhaps that doesn’t sound too terrible, but I can assure you it will bring very few mothers into the fray on the side of the angels. They may agree with the PR messages, but they aren’t going to be motivated to do anything.

Polling takes place in an artificial atmosphere: “I’m going to ask you a question, and then have you select, from four answers, your best choice…”

And what a polled audience thinks is their best choice, before and after a few rounds of really effective PR, will differ wildly.

PR for a good cause needs to deliver more than a message. It has to make a deep impact. Merely courting agreement comes up short.

Several years ago, I wrote a series of highly critical articles about the GMO “right to know what’s in your food” ballot initiative campaigns.

(To see two of these articles, go here and here. The complete archive is here.)

The leaders of the movement relied heavily on a number of polls, in which Americans repeatedly chose “right to know” as the preferred reason for wanting GMO labeling.

The ensuing TV ads taken out in several western states were mild and vapid.

Promises to educate people about the dangers of GMOs were never fulfilled across a broad spectrum of voters.

The leaders of the “right to know” movement had a plan: the ballot initiatives were the first step in what would later become a far more penetrating attack on Monsanto and the other biotech giants. But this attack has never materialized in a coordinated, timed, effective fashion.

The movement’s leaders, those who genuinely wanted to win, were lacking in the knowledge of how to operate a sustained PR campaign.

They spent a great deal of money on step one, and after that they began to react to Monsanto’s victories. Successful PR is not about reaction.

Authentic PR on behalf of a righteous cause changes many, many minds. Over time, it can turn a tide. At no point can those in charge back away and “do other things.” That would be the sign of a half-plan, a half-effort, and a great deal of confusion.

Then you’d begin to hear, “We’re under the gun, we need your help now more than ever,” and, “These are desperate times,” and “Step up now before it’s too late.”

Those statements are all versions of: “We’re the underdog.” Saying “underdog” may feel good, it may provoke sympathy, but it won’t win.

I admire anyone who is trying to lead a campaign for a cause that is noble, no matter how badly it is going, but when the objective is winning, knowledge about PR, up-front, is indispensable. It makes all the difference.

It turns ineffective actions into a plan that can have extraordinary results.

We are not talking about performance trophies for showing up. We’re talking about breaking the tape and crossing the finish line.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Thank you for this. When I speak to people in South Africa I tell them one fact about gmo and that seems to really wake them up. First that since Americans have been eating gmo the incidence of cancer has risen by 400%. Then they tell me their grandmothers lived to a ripe old age and they were eating non gmo maize but since it has been introduced in South Africa the incidence of cancer is rising in leaps and bounds. They also tell me that they know a lot of people getting diabetes and they now know that gmo is a death sentence. […] all their evil posonous crops […]